Thursday, December 27, 2012

The dictionary definition of feminism runs as follows: "The
doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women
equal to those of men."

This definition is inadequate owing to the
problematic nature of the term "equality", which has no stable meaning
outside the realm of mathematics. Consequently, the meaning can perennially
be refreshed, reframed or updated so that new demands for "equality" can
always be put forward. Accordingly, there will never be enough "equality", and
feminism will never go out of business because it will always find new
"inequality" in need of correction. So in practice, the tangible and intangible goods of life will be siphoned in a one-way flow from male to female and the female share of "equality" will increasingly dwarf the male share.

A circular argument is a style of fallacious logic which assumes the truth of its conclusion beforehand, in order to establish the truth of that conclusion. Which is to say, it is self-validating. A circular argument is easy to refute.

A spherical argument is an ecology of interwoven circular arguments that cross-reference and cross-validate each other with no reference beyond the conceptual space which their activity generates. A spherical argument is vastly more complicated than a circular argument, which makes it vastly more difficult to refute.

A system of cultural logic may be considered a spherical argument, and a spherical argument may be considered a paradigm. So at the heart of a culture, a cultural paradigm is embedded. And to refute a cultural paradigm is as difficult as to refute any other spherical argument, if not more so.

Feminism is a spherical argument which has gained the status of a cultural paradigm. That is what makes it so formidable.

Picture a gigantic heap of snow -- the kind you might see pushed up by a snowplow along a highway after a blizzard. Then picture yourself busy with a blowtorch -- slowly, patiently, inch by inch, melting that mound away to nothing. You know that your method cannot fail. You know the snow hasn't got a chance against you, that you need only keep unstintingly at it until the entire mound lies in a puddle at your feet. You know it is only a matter of time and that stubborn perseverence will assuredly crown your efforts with victory. Such is the beauty of an infallible method, and only a failure of sustained endeavor could possibly avert what is ordained.

Very well, feminism is that gigantic heap of snow. And we are the torching crew who cannot fail, provided only that our will-to-power, our discipline to the task and our adherence to the correct procedure do not fail us first. What do you think, does that sound like a good life? You bet it does! And needless to say, we are recruiting and training. So if you believe you are the right sort, then do come around. We'll see you there.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Feminism, otherwise known as female supremacism, is a trend that will prove unsustainable in the long run. If permitted to continue, it will spawn a future of grief, calamity, human wreckage, and civilizational meltdown. I suspect that a lot of us would rather not see that happen. I know I'd rather not.

Feminism is a mental disease that rots the human capacity to see objective facts for what they are. Each participant in the feminist cult is shielded by a communal force field of invincible ignorance that repels any projectile of truth (or even reasonable doubt) from the outside world -- and no combination of argument or gentle persuasion will ever change this! So if you are unacquainted with how feminism operates, take a tip from those who have spent years talking round and round the mulberry bush with every kind of feminist there is. We know them well, we know they are incorrigible, and we know they will never change until a dynamic outside force compels them to do so.

And so we look upon feminism as we would look upon any other dangerous lunatic who cannot be reasoned with, but must be locked up for the good of all. The question is not whether feminism should be eased out of business, but how. The imperative for strictly ethical dealing is problematized, but we would reject the use of physical violence unless violence from their side forces us to answer like with like. It is best that they should be the ones who do the violence. Our task is to chronicle their behavior for the enlightenment of posterity.

There are traditionalist women who rail bitterly against feminism only because it has deprived them of some womanly benefit which they believe they once possessed. Never do they say a word about what feminism has done TO MEN, specifically. Such women are utterly gynocentric, and wouldn't bat an eye about false accusation of rape, for example. But mercy-sakes how they love to carry on about the death of chivalry! Damn that terrible feminism for killing chivalry, and turning men into unmarriagable louts.Damn that feminism for causing men to objectify women! DAMN that feminism!

Such females are feminist in all but name. They may be culturally of the Right, but feminism is a product of Right and Left equally, since it would be impossible to exploit men effectively if the attack were not mounted from both ends of the spectrum.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

The project of isolating feminism and turning it into a commonly understood target, is called clarificatory discourse. The projected outcome of clarificatory discourse is called target consensus.
We of the non-feminist world propose to bring such things about, and we
do not mean to seek feminist approval. If our conclusions violate
official feminist self-presentation, that is not our concern. So in the
end, feminism is what we say it is -- and we will make it stick.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

If we could restore the pre-feminist world exactly as it was, we would restore the same conditions -- or vulnerablities -- which permitted feminism to take hold in the first place. And this is where the troglo-conservative anti-feminists (e.g. Jack Donovan) miss the boat, big time. They wish to to roll back the calendar to a particular status quo pro ante, and to ignore the lessons of history. For we ought to have learned by now that the former state of life was, in a profoundly consequential way, supportive of feminism. It was like a computer system with a security hole which allowed the feminist hacker exploit to happen. So in order ensure that it doesn't happen again, we must rebuild the firewall according to a very different plan. And nothing less than a cultural paradigm-shift will make this possible.

Yes, you can forget about going back to some imaginary good old days of "the patriarchy". It ain't happening, folks. We have nowhere to go but forward into the post-feminist future. And what will that future look like? Well I can tell you this much: the feminists will hate it, but so will the troglos. So brace yourself for life in the crossfire!

If an entity commits aggression against you, you are entitled to answer with a proportional or analogous aggression. Accordingly, if Frank Jones throws popcorn at you, you are entitled to answer this proportionally and analogously, by throwing popcorn back at him. If Frank throws rocks at you, you are entitled to answer this proportionally and analogously by throwing rocks back at him, or proportionally in terms of violence by throwing punches at him. And if Frank attacks you with lethal force, you are entitled to answer this proportionally or analogously with lethal force of whatever kind.

In a nutshell: the aggressor sets the terms of engagement.

Feminism, as an innovative social force in the world, has acted the part of an aggressor. Accordingly, feminism has set the terms of engagement with whatever is not feminist. The latter, therefore, is entitled to answer feminist aggression proportionally or analogously. And it should be an ongoing project to catalogue the forms, manners and degrees of feminist aggression. In this way,proportional or analogousresponse modes may be formulated and put into practice.

If somebody feeds you the loaded, trick question "what will you replace feminism with?", it is the same as if you'd told them that Amway is a scam, and they had replied "all right, so what is YOUR plan to make me rich?"

The only honest or meaningful answer to such a question is "nothing". What will you replace feminism with? Nothing.

When I say that misogyny is not a good idea, it is not at all for the sake of "women" that I speak. I do not consult the female interest -- or at least not directly. Rather, I am a pragmatist. Policy is my middle name, and I think it serves no good political purpose to speak ill of women as a group.

That is why I, myself, don't do this. No, not even in the most private conversations. On stage or off, my rhetorical personna is unvarying, and you will never hear any "bitches and ho's" diatribes from me. Others may talk that talk if so inclined, and I will not interfere. At most, I will counsel them to forebear, but I will not press the point. After all, it is not my job to clean up the mess which feminism created. That is feminsm's job.

But no, I personally see no need for vindictive sentiments toward women in the abstract. As a counter-feminist agent of change, my focus is upon feminism and how best to rid the world of it. To accomplish THAT project will bring all necessary benefits as a matter of course.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The day is coming when all men will be perfectly entitled to suspect the worst of all women, and to live on their guard against all contingencies. I do not, will not, and cannot fault them for this. In so saying, I speak in good faith and with a clear conscience -- and to speak otherwise would taint my conscience. And I hold feminism chiefly responsible for bringing such a world into existence. It's just the way things are -- don't look at me!

We are not Hercules. Therefore, rather than cleaning the Augean stables of the so-called MRM, we have
opted to rebuild. For that purpose, we propose a conspiracy which people of all occupations and conditions are invited to join.

Our central project is to break the grip of the feminist narrative upon our lives, one life at a time. We must understand that others will have had this experience, and that they too will understand this. And when this reaches a critical threshhold, it will break the feminist grip upon masses of lives collectively. Finally, having gained a common understanding, and having formed a community of the politically awakened, we will learn to recognize each other almost on sight.

We propose to damage feminism ultimately to the point
of collapse. That being said, the rest of the game falls neatly and logically into
place. We would introduce the core elements of a non-feminist paradigm into the cultural environment in an ineradicable way. This action would not originate from any point source which the uninitiated onlooker could identify, but seem to flow from a multitude of sources, and from all directions.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Between feminism and non-feminism there is a quintessential, qualitative order of difference -- a difference in kind. Non-feminism is not a "movement". Nor is it an historically created situation. It is merely the eternal, underlying default state of the world -- a state which reconstitutes instantly when feminism disappears. How instantly? As instantly as water fills the vacated space when you remove a solid object. And more, non-feminism is beyond good and evil, so moral generalizations do not apply to it. When feminism gets tired and loses its grip, non-feminism immediately reasserts dominion. It is, in sum, a force of nature. Your best plan is to deal with it.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Post-argumentalism is your resolute conviction that the time for argument is past. Firstly, it is the feeling you get when you realize that "you can't argue with crazy", or with "stupid", or with "crooked". Secondly, it is the policy you formulate in the wake of that realization.

This does not mean that you cease to use argument or debate, as a tool, on selected occasions. Rather, it means you have given up the idea that you cannot push ahead with your plans unless you first persuade your enemy of something. Really, if there is something you need to be doing, why not simply go ahead and do it? What are you waiting for -- permission from your enemy based on the outcome of a discussion? This is your enemy, for heaven's sake! How much consideration do you owe them? And just who the hell do they think they are anyway, the official gatekeepers of the turnpike?

The point of post-argumentalism is to reach your goal by some other method than intellectual persuasion of your enemy. So if you know you are right, just act like it, and forge ahead with your plans!

Firstly, "counter-feminist" is a disambiguative alternative to "anti-feminist" because it makes clear that "feminism", and not "femaleness", is the object under consideration. After all, what on earth would "counter-female" mean? It sounds peculiar and quizzical, don't you think so?

Secondly, "counter-feminism" is a phenomenologically-based thought system -- a pattern of linked observations with an evolving set of action proposals built upon those observations. Counter-feminism means to show feminism the road out of town by acting upon a body of knowledge which is efficient to that purpose.

Misandry is real. Anti-male politics is real. Female supremacism is real. These things EXIST. They are out there, in the world, in a hundred different forms. We must get to the bottom of it all, and by hook or by crook we shall. And so we craft and refine out methods as we go along. We inform practice by theory, and theory by practice. We iterate. We course-correct. We make mistakes and learn from them. And little by little we are closing in upon the target. We can shrewdly guess that this is so by the amount of flak we are taking.

The only way to stop the feminists from playing word games with the word "feminism", is to claim that word, and control the meaning of it on our own account. We know what the word means to US, in our world, for our purposes -- and nothing else would serve our purposes. If you are a feminist, you are free to converse with other feminists on the assumption that "feminism" means what you say it means. But when you wander into the non-feminist zone, you had best understand that you have entered a speech community with different lexical conventions. This will prevent needless misunderstanding.

From henceforth, feminism is what WE say it is. And feminist, if you don't like what WE say feminism is, then get back inside the feminist clubhouse, which is the only zone where your self-definition operates.

This Great Game of ours is built around a pair of oppositional binaries:

1. Non-feminist v. Feminist
2. Pro-male v. Anti-male

The difference between these items is, in truth, artificial. If you are non-feminist, you are ipso facto pro-male. And if you are feminist, you are ipso facto anti-male. However, it is for calculated reasons that we parse out these items as separate focal points. The logic behind that policy will become apparent in the fullness of time.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Instead of "anti-feminist", you should get in the habit of saying
"non-feminist". It puts the feminists in a more difficult position. The
secret is, in the long run, that whatever is "non" feminist has the same effect on
feminism as whatever is "anti" feminist. But the feminists cannot attack
"non" feminism without seeming like aggressors and bullies.

"Non" feminism is distinctive as a strategy because it is neither "offensive" nor "defensive". It is more like sidestepping your enemy's line of attack, so that your enemy spends his force on thin air and maybe even falls on his face.

Monday, December 10, 2012

If you engineer the state of the world such that group A and group B are in conflict, it should surprise nobody that their mutual hostility will increase. Such has been the case with feminism, which works to generate conflict between men and women, to ratchet up the ill-feeling on both sides, and to raise a terrible ruckus about the male side only. To hear the feminists talk, you would think that woman-hating -- or "misogyny" as they call it -- was a free-standing principle existing in isolation. And you would even think that men were the guilty parties, rather than the feminists themselves.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

If men and women are inherently different in ways that cultural training cannot account for, then the only way to make them "equal" is to put somebody in the Bed of Procrustes for stretching or chopping. And that "somebody", in practice, has been men.